The left loves Tim Walz. Can he unite the Democrats?

fukhueson@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 442 points –
The left loves Tim Walz. Can he unite the Democrats?
vox.com
88

You are viewing a single comment

Headline suggests that the Democrats - who are currently more united than they've been since probably Kennedy - aren't united.

If you think that's baffling, take a look at Nate Silver's column:

https://www.natesilver.net/p/tim-walz-is-a-minnesota-nice-choice

I'm not sure if Nate is talking about the same Walz and Shapiro as the rest of us.

Shapiro has Israel baggage that I am so glad I don't have to hear about online for the next forever. Kelly had a messy divorce that I'm sure nobody wants to have dredged up. Walz seems relatable to a great number of people.

Plus, he drives a 1979 IH Scout.

Shapiro's Israel issue would have been a toss-up issue. Some independents wanted him to be very pro-Israel, others no so much. Probably wouldn't have made a huge difference.

On the other hand, might have made a difference in Michigan among the large muslim minority who may not have come out to vote.

I really just hope Walz is not going to be another Kaine.

Democrats aren't the biggest fans of Israel right now. It's not independents that matter in his case.

Democrats are very divided on Israel but lots are very pro-Israel. Most American Jews vote Democratic.

Doesn't mean they agree with Netanyahu's handling of Gaza, but pro-Israel nonetheless.

Okay, but lots of Democrats won't vote for a pro-genocide administration. Someone who volunteered to be a soldier for their regime would have been seen as proof to them that Kamala was just as bad as Biden on Israel.

Wouldn't have mattered much when the alternative is Trump, which would be a thousand times worse than any candidate the Democrats could come up with.

Not all Democrats will vote blue no matter who and Harris's pick seems to be an acknowledgement that she can't afford to piss off the uncommitted movement.

2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...

I remember listening to a podcast they would make, a lady and a guy and Nate Silver. I think it's that podcast that makes me not really like him or his ideas aside from the numbers and the team he surrounds himself with. I look at 538 and I trust it for the most part but if it has Silver attached to it, I think of it as editorial

538 no longer has Nate Silver or his model; Disney bought it and fired him like a year ago or so.

Still, I agree; I don't like his politics, but his analysis of polls and numbers is probably the best out there.

He seems to have gotten more right-wing in recent years, although he doesn't talk about it too explicitly (maybe he was always like that and I just didn't know).

I remember him downplaying the J6 insurrection during one of the podcasts which was the point where I lost a lot of respect for him, and frankly him leaving isn't a big loss as he seemed to be just over election modelling in general by the end.

Lmao, Silver is equating a Walz pick to a TIM KAINE pick.

I’m sorry, I can’t read any further with sooo much cope.

Yeah, it doesn't get much better. Silver's great when it's just about numbers, but less so when it's slightly more intangible. This column might be the peak example.

You should read through the comments on that post.

Almost NONE of Silvers subscribers are having it.

This just a way off base miss of Silvers.

Believe the numbers, doubt the pundit.

Silver's claim that Walz is a Tim Kaine pick is just dead on arrival. I'm sorry, I appreciate his actual model, but his argument here is just too speculative.

Yeah, I typically like Nate, but today's column seemed sloppy. I don't see how Walz is the "safe" choice - he's further left than Shapiro. I also didn't get what he was saying about Minnesota values not translating. I think Walz was a bold pick and I'm happy with the choice.

Seconded. Walz isn’t “safe” if you look at his policies. He’s pretty far left and is just fine implementing social policy, gun control, and using government money to fund social programs. That’s pretty radical if you’re a Republican. While he isn’t a policymaker as the VP, he’s a tie-breaker and he’s a future presidential candidate should Harris win.

He doesn't even understand that "Minnesota Nice" is not a compliment. It refers to when people who have lived here their whole lives and have close often going back to high school. When someone from out of state moves to Minnesota, their co-workers, neighbors etc will be friendly, act interested in the newbs lives, and even offer things like "we should get together sometime". That is in no way an invitation to actually do anything. If the newb proposes a date "to get the kids together", the Minnesotan will hem, haw and make up excuses.

Minnesota Nice is a special kind of nice.

He should just predict basketball or what ever and leave politics to the adults that he hired.

In case you're not aware, 538 was acquired by Disney/ABC, and he's no longer involved with them.

So yeah, he's just a pundit now, and his punditry was never that great to begin with. The Model is what made him good

2 more...

I think that's a pretty simplistic take considering we just swapped our candidate less than 6 months before the election. I agree with the article's take that Walz has potential to unify the differing democratic coalitions, and don't see any evidence of your claim.

Walz’s elevation earns the left a big victory. Yet because Walz himself isn’t of the left, the pick seems intended to serve a unifying purpose: a candidate who appeals to all different stripes of Democrats for different reasons. The fact that Democrats across the political spectrum seem thrilled by the pick — with effusive support coming from people ranging from Sen. Joe Manchin (WV) to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) — seems to validate the theory.

It’s important to be clear: The VP selection matters way less for elections than people think. It’s much more important to select a potential president than an optimal running mate.

But you can see why Harris sees picking Walz as smart politics. It allows her to simultaneously hand the left a win without necessarily tacking left — potentially keeping her coalition united even as she works to win over the general election’s decisive centrists.

I think its important to recognize the value this VP pick can bring, and I've not known vox to try to suggest something like that without reason.

Edit: I'm also going to add that your reply is a disingenuous attempt to falsely turn this into a binary unified or not unified condition, not that the article is making such a claim. I entirely reject your statement.

My statement stands.

Good talk.

Edit: no follow ups.... guess they didn't read the article past the headline? :)

Edit 2: they clearly didn't lol

13 more...